Ranbot wrote:What if the US just got to Australia levels of gun regulation? A country that spans an entire continent, democratic style of governance, English speaking, former colony of England, a nation with one of the larger economies in the world, contains a mix of modern urban areas and vast rural and agricultural areas where gun ownership is part of the culture..... sound familiar?

To what end?

Gun regulation isn't a good thing in itself. No regulation is, really. Australia has fairly low violence rates but...they've been decreasing steadily for 25 years, which predates their gun ban/confiscation attempt. Fans of gun banning would love to give the gun ban credit for it, but...it could easily be something else, and the trends that predated the gun banning pretty much have to be, causality not working backward and all.

And, even if you accept that somehow, guns are connected to the decreasing homicide rates in Australia, gun ownership rates are increasing, not decreasing in Australia. The country has about 50% more guns per person than they did when they passed the 1996 ban.

The answer to "To what end?" would be fewer "assault-style" guns, like Australia has restricted. Statistics relating all guns to all murders misses the mark of what gun control regulations are trying to do. No one really cares if anyone owns 50+ hunting rifles; but they do care if someone owns 50+ assault style guns... [OR one assault style gun and 50+ large capacity magazines]. Relating all guns to all murders is also mostly irrelevant because gun regulation laws aren't inspired by or designed to stop individual murders. What people really care about is trying to stop mass shootings in schools, movie theaters, concerts, churches, night clubs, etc. These mass shootings and home-grown terrorists are what drain our society, government, and economy trying to defend against and clean up after. That's what gun regulations are principally trying to stop or reduce. So, the statistics of overall gun ownership and overall murders are red herrings and miss the point. Now, getting back to Australia's gun ban, I think you can find a correlation between Australia's 1996 ban on specific types of assault-style guns and their incidents of mass shootings since then... there have been ZERO mass shootings since 1996.

You have also stated or alluded to cultural difference between the US and Australia that could account for the difference in murders.* The fact that Australia was even able to pass and enforce their assault weapon ban shows their culture probably is a little different, but when I brought up Australia's gun ban I had a reason for listing the many ways Australia and the United States history, geography, economics, and government are very similar. I don't believe the cultures are as drastically different as some people purport. I have an extremely hard time believing that Australia's 20+ years without a single mass shooting incident is 100% cultural and not at all related to their regulations.

(* and I presume you would correlate mass shootings to culture too, although I know you didn't say anything about mass shootings specifically... if not I take it back.)

Also it's been stated in the discussion above that regulations eventually can influence culture, like how smoking restrictions have helped society smoke less. Or seat belt regulations for cars have slowly become a widespread social habit for most people to buckle up. So, if there's a problem with our culture of violence and guns, then maybe it's time for regulation that will help shape that culture in a more positive and safer way for everyone.

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Ranbot wrote:The answer to "To what end?" would be fewer "assault-style" guns, like Australia has restricted. Statistics relating all guns to all murders misses the mark of what gun control regulations are trying to do.

Okay, but...if it's not actually helping with murder rate, why do we care about "assault-style" guns?

What people really care about is trying to stop mass shootings in schools, movie theaters, concerts, churches, night clubs, etc. These mass shootings and home-grown terrorists are what drain our society, government, and economy trying to defend against and clean up after. That's what gun regulations are principally trying to stop or reduce. So, the statistics of overall gun ownership and overall murders are red herrings and miss the point. Now, getting back to Australia's gun ban, I think you can find a correlation between Australia's 1996 ban on specific types of assault-style guns and their incidents of mass shootings since then... there have been ZERO mass shootings since 1996.

Uh, the last mass shooting in Australia was in May. May 2018. Seven dead, which certainly counts as a mass shooting by any standard anti-gunners use to judge the US.

(* and I presume you would correlate mass shootings to culture too, although I know you didn't say anything about mass shootings specifically... if not I take it back.)

Mass killings in general probably have culture-related connections, sure. I am not certain I can list all of them, as crime and murder are complicated subjects, but there's a number of known factors that go with violent crime. Lead consumption was definitely a past issue in the US and hell, given the state of Detroit, we may not be entirely past it. These may not explain every crime, but there's a lot of known factors already. One of the most obvious in the US is how many of them fit a pattern that was just ignored.

Mass killers are almost invariably socially isolated youngish males with an antisocial, violent history. A great number of the individuals demonstrate many warning signs, but pretty much nothing happens until after the shooting starts. A ton of them have violent crimes, often including domestic violence in their past. A culture of ignoring such individuals has obvious problems.

Also it's been stated in the discussion above that regulations eventually can influence culture, like how smoking restrictions have helped society smoke less. Or seat belt regulations for cars have slowly become a widespread social habit for most people to buckle up. So, if there's a problem with our culture of violence and guns, then maybe it's time for regulation that will help shape that culture in a more positive and safer way for everyone.

See, here's the thing. People keep blaming violence on exposure to recreational activity. Some blame movies. Some blame video games. Some blame the NRA.

But those things are not causally linked. Yeah, those are all parts of the culture, but if you banned every violent video game tomorrow, there's no reason to expect that violence would decrease. Likewise, if the NRA vanished tomorrow, it would certainly be easier to pass gun restrictions, but there's no reason to think that violence would decrease. You'd be changing the culture all right, but you wouldn't be changing the problems. You're going after portions of the culture that you dislike, but are demonstrably not the cause.

The NRA(and related portions of gun culture) are not the mass murderers. Taking shots at the culture of former does fuck all to the latter. They're different subcultures.

Yet, these young anti-social fuckups (if you're someone who shoots up a school, you are a fuckup) would be less able to shoot up a school, if the guns are not as easily accessible. Currently guns are easily accessible for everyone because there's so many goddamn guns around. If there were less guns lying around to take/borrow/steal, there'd be less shootings. Yes, people can do harm in many different ways (and of course they do), but it's just far too easy to find a un-secured gun and shoot a bunch of people.

That's what I don't get about arguments like these. There are more shootings here partically because there are a metric fuckton of guns, making it easy to find one and to use it impulsively.

Making a pipe bomb requires research, acquiring materials, and some know-how. Bringing a knife to school/public and using it on some people takes quite the iron stomach and wherewithal (or be a sociopath). Pointing a gun at a bunch of peolpe and pulling the trigger is much easier (both from a logistics standpoint, as well as a social standpoint) than either of the previous two options.

Sure, mental health is certainly a huge factor, but most of the people who use this refrain each time, also don't vote in a way that reflects what they say (they vote against background checks working more efficiently, or against putting money towards any form of social mental health care), which makes it look like a huge cop-out.

Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

freezeblade wrote:Yet, these young anti-social fuckups (if you're someone who shoots up a school, you are a fuckup) would be less able to shoot up a school, if the guns are not as easily accessible. Currently guns are easily accessible for everyone because there's so many goddamn guns around. If there were less guns lying around to take/borrow/steal, there'd be less shootings. Yes, people can do harm in many different ways (and of course they do), but it's just far too easy to find a un-secured gun and shoot a bunch of people.

So, you ban bump stocks(or whatever, bump stocks are the current example, but the specific thing changes), and nobody turns them in, well, looks like there's plenty around to take/borrow/steal. Given that this is actually happening in response to state-wide bans, I think this logic is dubious. If such a niche ban doesn't work, then a broad ban on guns certainly won't. I mean, lots of things are illegal for kids to get, but somehow, underage drinking, drug use, etc are still pretty common.

And if "so many guns around" creates more murderers, then we ought to see Australia's murder rate going through the roof because of the increase in gun ownership.

Both steps in your chain of logic don't really match up with reality.

That's what I don't get about arguments like these. There are more shootings here partically because there are a metric fuckton of guns, making it easy to find one and to use it impulsively.

Man, these mass shooters aren't randomly doing this on an impulse. At a minimum, they have to bring a gun to school. No, they're planning this shit. Often, they make very detailed, elaborate preparations. Mass shootings are largely not an impulse crime.

Making a pipe bomb requires research, acquiring materials, and some know-how. Bringing a knife to school/public and using it on some people takes quite the iron stomach and wherewithal (or be a sociopath). Pointing a gun at a bunch of peolpe and pulling the trigger is much easier (both from a logistics standpoint, as well as a social standpoint) than either of the previous two options.

Making pipe bombs or other IEDs does seem to be a pretty common activity for mass killers.

As for stabbing someone requiring an unfortunate mental state, I gotta tell ya, people who conduct mass shootings are also not the most stable, empathetic people.

Sure, mental health is certainly a huge factor, but most of the people who use this refrain each time, also don't vote in a way that reflects what they say (they vote against background checks working more efficiently, or against putting money towards any form of social mental health care), which makes it look like a huge cop-out.

Let's debunk these one at a time.Background checks. No, the right does not vote against "background checks working more efficiently". They vote against laws that extend the reach and cost of background checks in an effort to stomp out gun culture while doing fuck-all for efficiency. Republicans have routinely advocated enforcement of existing law and actually punishing those who purchase guns for criminal purpose, or who are caught actually using guns for criminal activity.

The right doesn't generally fund much of a safety net, that's true, and the NRA generally gives no fucks either way about that. It isn't the thing they lobby about. They care about guns, and pretty much only guns. It's not an organization dedicated to mental health. That said, even incredibly democratic states have jacked up mental health programs. MD is blue as hell, and it's widely acknowledged as a dumpster fire for mental health. So, it's most accurate to say that neither party actually cares at all about fixing mental health. One side just wants to blame guns, while the other blames the media.

The solution to the 'Gun Violence' problem (which is mainly suicides) is universal healthcare that covers mental health, along with education/advocacy campaigns and legal reform to remove the stigma from seeking help for mental health issues.

The solution to the violent crime/homicide problem (which is mostly drug related gang violence) is ending the war on drugs, ending private prisons, and reforming the social safety net to remove the incentives to violent criminality and give vulnerable populations the ability to support themselves without resorting to criminal trades.

The solution to the 'mass shooting' problem is to increase funding to schools, including resources and training for teachers and administrators to recognize problem students and treat them with appropriate care (would help if mental healthcare improvements mentioned above were also made, so the burden of dealing with problem students isn't placed solely on the school system)

Neither party is exactly chomping at the bit to solve any of these problems.

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

PAstrychef wrote:One of the long term effects of restrictive laws is to change the social view of the items/actions being regulated. We instituted laws about DUI and public smoking, and over time both have become unacceptable (or at least unpopular). Both sets of laws were ridiculed as useless and overreaching and both have made our world safer and saved lives.

I like the way you think.

The idea that guns are an essential thing that people must be allowed to owned is pernicious and the basis for the ongoing situation in the US. Many, many people believe this. The myth of the gun in the US is a foundation of national identity. Therefore, any discussion about regulation becomes a quagmire because we are only talking about guns themselves in a superficial manner. For many people, these regulations are attacks on their personal and national identities.

We are also a Car Culture.The Second Admendment uses the words, Well Regulated.Our cars are pretty well regulated.

I think we need Three Laws that are Strictly Enforced.The Strictly Enforced part is important.

We needed to see people Suffer for driving Drunk often enough, for getting caught doing it to strike fear into the heart.

1. Every person that owns and uses a Gun must be Licensed.We need to see people Suffer for possessing a gun without a License.The punishment Must be at least as much as driving without a License.(I have taken three gun courses and passed the Test.I had fun and learned something new during each course.)

You can not own, register and drive a Car until you have reached a Magic Age.Until you reach that Magic Age you must operate under the supervision of a Licensed Driver.We need the same kind of accountability for Gun use.

2. Every Gun must be Registered.Every Car must be Registered to Someone!

Someone pays a fee and gives a lot of personal information for every Car in our Car Culture.We are doing ourselves a disservice if we ask any less of ourselves as Gun Owners, today.

Every Car has a person or persons responsible for it.Every Gun should be traceable to its Lawful Owner.

3. Secure Storage Required!If you choose to own a Gun, the smart move is to also own a Gun Safe.You are responsible for What that Gun does 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I did not leave my gun in a locked car all by its self nor in a locked house.Car widows and house windows can be broken. Bolt your safe down!

These are reasonable regulations that would help keep Guns out of the hands of school children.

However, making access to guns more difficult, making gun use less sexy as a problem solver, making owners legally responsible for any shooting done with their guns-it should be possible to get people to be less enamored with guns.

You are absolutely correct!If I allow someone to take my Car, I am responsible.

That Man in Texas, the one that allowed his child unfettered access to Guns, should be in Jail!He didn't Know any better, because no one had ever made him take a class, pass a test, register and take responsibility for his Guns.

Starting out by saying that any regulation won’t stop a determined individual so we should do nothing is a cop out. Laws don’t prevent crimes, they allow society to punish those who do things it deems unacceptable. Laws are society’s way of saying “this is a bad thing, do it and you will be sorry.

Yep! Yes! Responsible gun owners won't mind.The others will be Sorry! A few will fall before the rest catch on.

” Starting to say “guns are used to kill too many people in the US.” is at least a beginning. Acknowledging that access to guns is a real part of the problem is necessary.After all, we enforce DUI laws even if the police can’t possibly catch every drunk driver. Even though some folks can down pint after pint and still drive just fine, we don’t claim it’s an individual issue when someone is arrested for DUI. Cries of “most drunk drivers get home just fine!” aren’t heard across the country. Discussing minutiae as substantive problems is another place where this conversation grinds to a halt. “Bump stocks ok!” “Bump stocks bad!” “Assault weapons don't exist!” “Assault weapons must be banned!” These are ways of deflecting dissent. The basic question is why our society has thought it was ok and normal for guns to be everywhere, has fetishized them, glorified them and seen their use as a form of freedom.

You are correct.We must regulate. It is our duty.I hope the Parkland Florida people keep speaking out!

Spoiler:

Do the people that have buried children know their children died because of a Fetish?

I want to see regulations. I don't want to tell them.

Drawing a line between Car Ownership and Gun Ownership is Not silly.I was in Ireland in the 1990's, when the people of Ireland were debating Driver's Tests. We need Gun Tests.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Guns are different from cars in several important aspects which (should) affect how and why they are regulated.

[tldr:The damage done by cars is primarily accidental, and amenable to "car training". The damage done by guns is primarily deliberate, and not amenable to "gun training". And unlike cars, guns are the thing that ultimately holds government accountable to its citizens. Yes, gun users should be trained in how (and when) to use them safely. But that's not the main problem. Don't be distracted.]

Cars are a convenience. They are a necessary convenience in many parts of the country because of the distances between things, and thus help hold modern economics and society together.

The damage caused via cars is generally accidental, not deliberate.

Cars are regulated because citizens who wish to do (otherwise) good things with cars fail. They fail in judgment (driving while drunk or distracted), they fail in ability (driving with less skill than needed for conditions), they fail in other ways too, but generally the damage they cause is by failing to do something well enough. Regulation is intended to mitigate that through skill and judgment management.

Guns, on the other hand, are the thing that the government uses to keep its subjects in line. This use could be directly (police shootings) or indirectly (the threat of police shootings), but make no mistake: We are kept in line by the guns government points at us.

Guns are also ultimately the only thing that keeps the government in line. Voting is nice, but while we like to call it a "right", it is just a privilage that government grants us, and those in charge of government have worked hard to ensure that our votes are as inconsequential as possible through peaceful means (such as gerrymandering) and less peaceful means (such as voter suppression). Now, we willfully participate in the devaluation of voting by tweeting out fake news (because it fuels our emotions) and ignoring true news (because it's boring, especially when it goes on for long enough). But behind all of the changes that can be made through voting, the one thing that gives power to the ballot box is the gun. So long as government legitimately fears armed revolt, they will listen to the ballot box. But once armed revolt becomes impossible, or at least inconsequential, government will be free to ignore the ballot box, and simply declare themselves to be the Supreme Rulers.

As such, guns have an important, even vital, role in society - they literally created the United States of America, keep its citizens safe from one another, and secure the rights of its citizens against government. This works as well (or as badly) as people do, but it's the ultimate trump card when people disagree over where rights begin and end.

OTOH, guns, as power amplifiers, are also used in crime; violent criminals are not known for paying much attention to legal matters. Crime is clearly bad, violent crime is worse. But we are the ones that get to decide (for now!) what constitutes "crime". Armed robbery, data theft, witchcraft, gay sex, false advertising, and libel were all once considered crimes. Some still are. I won't get into what should or shouldn't be considered criminal, but given agreement on that, crime is a failure of society.

Guns are also used in hunting (irrespective of what you think of killing animals) and for entertainment (regardless of whether or not shooting off a bunch of rounds in the desert gives you a thrill), in self defense (due to the failure of society mentioned above), and for other reasons.

But the important thing is that the damage caused by guns, unlike the damage caused by cars, is rarely accidental. Guns are dangerous, and I am in favor of requiring training to minimize accidental damage (whether by improper storage, careless handling, or poor attitude towards a lethal tool). But that doesn't address the important issue.

In most cases, when guns cause damage, that damage is deliberate. When somebody is killed by a gun, that is usually the intended (or accepted) result.

This is true when criminals use guns against innocent citizens, when government uses guns against presumed innocent citizens (especially when there are no significant consequences), and when citzens use guns to rise up against a government that has gone so far off its nut that violent revolution is the only alternative.

I don't think we're (yet) close to that last situation, but removing the ultimate method for citizens to hold government accountable would render the Constitution little more than a piece of paper, whose freedoms become privilages granted by a benign Supreme Council.

The thing that needs regulating is not guns. It is guns used in crime. And this translates into crime. And this requires understanding crime and what motivates it, and caring about it.

If we don't care what motivates crime, and care enough to address that problem, then all this gun talk is nothing more than dangerous noise.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Guns are also ultimately the only thing that keeps the government in line.

That argument is so fundamentally flawed...

Good Grief, Jose!We would be more likely to succeed in holding the United States Government and her Military at bay with our moving vehicles than with Guns.Our Government has the largest and best equipped Military that has ever existed. That, Jose, is...well... That's, just, dumb, if not ingenuous.

When the idea of you and me taking on the largest Military Force in History fades from your mind's eye, we can talk, again.Cars can and have been used as deadly weapons. More than a few people have been prosecuted for the crime.

We don't do much of that, because our culture has been sculpted around the idea of our Car is a member of the Family.

Dogs can do a lot of damage, too. We are not Required to take a Dog Class. Some of us are born talented.We are required to Immunize, License and Register our Dogs. Oh! Oh! What a Good Idea! You Have Given Me!

We maybe need a Fourth Regulation!If you are going to own a Dog, you must take it in for a Rabies Shot every year.

So...If you are the Registered Owner of a Gun, you must take it in for a Well Gun and Owner Check each year.I had three pretty good regulations that were not much trouble for well meaning, law abiding folk.

You have given me a pretty good idea.The fine for Not going in each year could make the California DMV look like a bunch of sissies.

(Tee-Hee...) You make me laugh, Jose.The idea that a Rag Tag Bunch of Gray Hairs can take on the U.S. Government is funny,

Then...I sober up.The idea that 17 year old child had never had the socially required experience of taking a Gun Class is Not funny.Has anyone spoken to his Father? Did they give him his Guns back? Or; Has he had to change his name and move?

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

addams wrote:Our Government has the largest and best equipped Military that has ever existed.

Yes, and probably the most agressively equipped police force too. Nonetheless, the police are afraid of people with guns. It gives them pause. (Yes, it also gives them the urge to shoot first). Remember that the military is still composed of citizens. And if they want to tromp us, it will have to be quite overt. If nobody (else) had guns, it wouldn't have to be overt. It could happen before we knew it had.

The point isn't that fifteen people with muskets can take on the US military. The point is, the military would have to deal with people with muskets if it were to stage a coup. That would give it pause, before we got to the stage where a coup would even be considered. That's important.

addams wrote:Cars can and have been used as deadly weapons.

Yes, and dogs too. But look at the numbers. Most car deaths are not from cars being deliberately used as weapons. Most gun deaths are. That's an important difference. Most gun deaths won't be prevented by gun training (even though gun training is a Good Thing).

If you want to see how government gun regulation can go bad, just imagine that Donald Trump supervises the regulations. He's already asked for names and addresses of people who work to counter violent terrorism. You don't think that's intimidation? You don't think he'd do the same for gun ownership, should it become useful to him? Are you comfortable with this?

(Not a rant on the orange orangutang - just a reminder that government cannot be assumed to remain benign.)

addams wrote:The idea that 17 year old child had never had the socially required experience of taking a Gun Class is Not funny.

I agree. But it does not address the problem, which is that bad people deliberately use guns to kill good people.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Oh, Jose....It's not that there are so many Bad People.It's that our culture is...it abandons us.

Nonetheless, the police are afraid of people with guns. It gives them pause.

Nor much pause before they shoot to kill.Having a Gun may be a fine thing for a well-to-do White Man.The very idea that a Man of Color might have a Gun kills him by Cop.

We are going far a field my dear Friend, Jose.Read this Post, one more Time.She has several good points.

PAstrychef wrote:One of the long term effects of restrictive laws is to change the social view of the items/actions being regulated. We instituted laws about DUI and public smoking, and over time both have become unacceptable (or at least unpopular). Both sets of laws were ridiculed as useless and overreaching and both have made our world safer and saved lives.The idea that guns are an essential thing that people must be allowed to owned is pernicious and the basis for the ongoing situation in the US. Many, many people believe this. The myth of the gun in the US is a foundation of national identity. Therefore, any discussion about regulation becomes a quagmire because we are only talking about guns themselves in a superficial manner. For many people, these regulations are attacks on their personal and national identities. However, making access to guns more difficult, making gun use less sexy as a problem solver, making owners legally responsible for any shooting done with their guns-it should be possible to get people to be less enamored with guns. Starting out by saying that any regulation won’t stop a determined individual so we should do nothing is a cop out. Laws don’t prevent crimes, they allow society to punish those who do things it deems unacceptable. Laws are society’s way of saying “this is a bad thing, do it and you will be sorry.” Starting to say “guns are used to kill too many people in the US.” is at least a beginning. Acknowledging that access to guns is a real part of the problem is necessary.After all, we enforce DUI laws even if the police can’t possibly catch every drunk driver. Even though some folks can down pint after pint and still drive just fine, we don’t claim it’s an individual issue when someone is arrested for DUI. Cries of “most drunk drivers get home just fine!” aren’t heard across the country. Discussing minutiae as substantive problems is another place where this conversation grinds to a halt. “Bump stocks ok!” “Bump stocks bad!” “Assault weapons don't exist!” “Assault weapons must be banned!” These are ways of deflecting dissent. The basic question is why our society has thought it was ok and normal for guns to be everywhere, has fetishized them, glorified them and seen their use as a form of freedom.

Jose; We as a people must start thinking differently.We can use many tools to harm one another.How do we begin the process of changing the minds of our mostly White Men?

Spoiler:

I see I have my work cut out for me.We can not rise up against our Government with muskets.oh, Jose...Where in The World did you get this idea?

Do you remember Waco?Those men were well armed.

They and their Families died by Military.We can not effect change with violence.

Orange Hitler is the scariest thing I've ever seen in my life.We can't use Guns to change That. We must stop thinking we can.

This reminds me of a local man.He was a preper, ready to shoot.

I told him, "Stop! You are old!You have already survived!"

We can change our minds. I think it can be done.No. Do not put Gun Regulations in Orange Hitler's hand.Keep it local; By State maybe by County.

The Feds can give minimum guidelines under those no man can fall.Some States will exceed the Feds and they have a Right to do that.

Kind'a like Medical.There are Federal Rules you dare not fall under.The sky is the limit for how High we can fly.

The Regulations of Forced Owner's Registration, Operator's License and Secure Storage will help to turn the ship.

We also need research into our epidemic of Gun Violence.That's were the Feds must act.The CDC can help us if Congress will allow.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

ucim wrote:Guns, on the other hand, are the thing that the government uses to keep its subjects in line. This use could be directly (police shootings) or indirectly (the threat of police shootings), but make no mistake: We are kept in line by the guns government points at us.

I find it remarkable how some people seem to fear a government that, on balance, is not actually trying that hard to oppress its own people while at the same time (not, so far as I know, in your case) deifying a head of government who seems hell-bent on sinking the ship with his antics whilst securing the best lifeboat.

And we in the UK are far from cowed subjects, despite our blissfully gun-free hands. Maybe your gubmint keeps you in line through threat of armed force¹, but there may well be better ways. And we've also all seen/experienced what happens when you try not to sneeze or cough and hold it back, just to make it worse.

I don't really know what it's like to live in the States (I've worked in Europe, some time ago, initially shocked at seeing armed police "walking the beat", and it's still a double-take when I see a couple of armed police officers 'being visible' around a busy shopping area, nowadays - even though I always knew these specialiats and their still-roving backup were always on-call if events proved necessary), but I suspect your experience is also severely lacking the freedom of action (but not to be casually criminal) I happily enjoy over here.

¹ The police thing I think is a feedback thing. A perpetually armed populous, however good the reason, leads to similarly perpetually armed criminal-classes leads to perpetually gun-crazy cops. Who would have thought that a country born of conflict and resentment of rulers should still be heavily internally conflicted and resentful of its rulers?

ucim wrote:Guns are also ultimately the only thing that keeps the government in line. Voting is nice, but while we like to call it a "right", it is just a privilage that government grants us, and those in charge of government have worked hard to ensure that our votes are as inconsequential as possible through peaceful means (such as gerrymandering) and less peaceful means (such as voter suppression). Now, we willfully participate in the devaluation of voting by tweeting out fake news (because it fuels our emotions) and ignoring true news (because it's boring, especially when it goes on for long enough). But behind all of the changes that can be made through voting, the one thing that gives power to the ballot box is the gun. So long as government legitimately fears armed revolt, they will listen to the ballot box. But once armed revolt becomes impossible, or at least inconsequential, government will be free to ignore the ballot box, and simply declare themselves to be the Supreme Rulers.

This idea is quaint and often claimed, but completely unsupportable by evidence. The correlation between gun ownership and democratic freedoms is actually weak to non-existent. Likewise, nonviolent revolutions are both far more likely to succeed and far more likely to be democratic than nonviolent ones.

EdgarJPublius wrote:[list][*] The solution to the 'Gun Violence' problem (which is mainly suicides) is universal healthcare that covers mental health, along with education/advocacy campaigns and legal reform to remove the stigma from seeking help for mental health issues.

It is true that statistically, suicides utterly dwarf say, mass shootings or what not. The latter gets a lot of media time, but the former is much larger impact.

I am not sure with I agree with the traditional Democratic answer to healthcare being a solution for it, but I do agree regarding the rest.

[*] The solution to the violent crime/homicide problem (which is mostly drug related gang violence) is ending the war on drugs, ending private prisons, and reforming the social safety net to remove the incentives to violent criminality and give vulnerable populations the ability to support themselves without resorting to criminal trades.

Treatment-based programs do have a pretty good record there. Other countries have adopted them, and experienced very significant changes in results. If we were going to start off with one thing, focusing on treating people over incarcerating them is probably going to be the low hanging fruit. It'll eventually contribute to the other things you mention, and it's advocated by a number of people(including Libertarians often, who generally favor less punitive drug policies).

Neither party is exactly chomping at the bit to solve any of these problems.

Definitely true. Not a lot of political sway for reducing the war on drugs or actual suicide prevention. They do a few feel-good campaigns for publicity, but the root system doesn't change much with either party.

ucim wrote:Guns are also ultimately the only thing that keeps the government in line. Voting is nice, but while we like to call it a "right", it is just a privilage that government grants us, and those in charge of government have worked hard to ensure that our votes are as inconsequential as possible through peaceful means (such as gerrymandering) and less peaceful means (such as voter suppression). Now, we willfully participate in the devaluation of voting by tweeting out fake news (because it fuels our emotions) and ignoring true news (because it's boring, especially when it goes on for long enough). But behind all of the changes that can be made through voting, the one thing that gives power to the ballot box is the gun. So long as government legitimately fears armed revolt, they will listen to the ballot box. But once armed revolt becomes impossible, or at least inconsequential, government will be free to ignore the ballot box, and simply declare themselves to be the Supreme Rulers.

Now, I think this is important, but it's mostly a soft power thing, not a hard power one. Revolutions are rare in modern democracies, and not every revolution is successful. Additionally, even successful revolutions are very costly. Frequent revolution would seem to be very far from ideal in any governing system.

I agree that preserving the power of the electorate is important, but revolution is sort of a last ditch thing. A dirty politician can get away with rather a lot before revolution becomes a serious consideration. Basically, it ends up being *very* important in extreme circumstances(and in preventing those extreme circumstances), but is not very effective at preventing more typical government problems. If your country is being literally invaded, then sure, guns matter(privately owned firearms in Europe had significant impact on resistance efforts in WW2). But it doesn't really prevent a stupid law being passed. That happens all the time, guns or no.

ucim wrote:

addams wrote:Our Government has the largest and best equipped Military that has ever existed.

Yes, and probably the most agressively equipped police force too. Nonetheless, the police are afraid of people with guns. It gives them pause. (Yes, it also gives them the urge to shoot first). Remember that the military is still composed of citizens. And if they want to tromp us, it will have to be quite overt. If nobody (else) had guns, it wouldn't have to be overt. It could happen before we knew it had.

Counterpoint, the urge to shoot first has been demonstrated by police in many situations where they couldn't reasonably believe the target to be armed. At least a goodly portion of the police urge to shoot first does not seem to stem from a legitimate fear of aggression.

If anything, I note that police seem much more cautious when clearly overmatched with regards to firepower. I note that they approached those ranchers with a rather less overt-violence style than they do the average person who they wildly outnumber.

Ranbot wrote:...back to Australia's gun ban, I think you can find a correlation between Australia's 1996 ban on specific types of assault-style guns and their incidents of mass shootings since then... there have been ZERO mass shootings since 1996.

Uh, the last mass shooting in Australia was in May. May 2018. Seven dead, which certainly counts as a mass shooting by any standard anti-gunners use to judge the US.

Good point, I forgot about that recent mass shooting. (We have so many mass shootings to pay attention to here in the US, that I probably barely noticed one happening in Australia.) BUT, Australia's record over the last few decades is undeniably far better than the US and it's far too early to say Australia is sliding into a trend of mass shootings based on one event. I think my point still stands.

Tyndmyr wrote:

Ranbot wrote:(* and I presume you would correlate mass shootings to culture too, although I know you didn't say anything about mass shootings specifically... if not I take it back.)

Mass killings in general probably have culture-related connections, sure. I am not certain I can list all of them, as crime and murder are complicated subjects, but there's a number of known factors that go with violent crime. Lead consumption was definitely a past issue in the US...

This issue of lead is actually related to my career... lead exposure is associated with increased violent behavior, but overall lead exposure (which is principally from old water pipes, leaded paint dust/chips, and inhalation of leaded gasoline fumes or smog) has gone down drastically since regulations in the 1970's. Lead exposure has gone down while mass shootings have gone up. Also, lead use wasn't unique to the US, you can find lots of lead exposure all over the world without correlations to mass shootings. I won't deny the possibility lead could be a minor contributory factor... but it's far from a smoking gun.

Tyndmyr wrote:Mass killers are almost invariably socially isolated youngish males with an antisocial, violent history. A great number of the individuals demonstrate many warning signs, but pretty much nothing happens until after the shooting starts. A ton of them have violent crimes, often including domestic violence in their past. A culture of ignoring such individuals has obvious problems.

Yeah often stated and I won't say it's wrong, but I don't find it to be as relevant to gun control as it's often made to be. Quality mental health support in this country is a non-starter, caught in the morass of other health care issues. The issues of mental health support and guns are related, but not necessarily dependent on each other insofar as regulation. It's like if you own house and a massive limb in jeopardy of breaking hangs over your roof, but the trunk of the tree is on your neighbor's property, so you shrug your shoulders and do nothing. That's what the "fix mental health first" argument sounds like to me. So, I don't think the lack of mental health care precludes us from giving police and courts a better means to track and/or remove weapons from potentially dangerous individuals. Nor do I think it precludes us from a better system of checks and/or training of individuals before giving them responsibility for weapons that can do so much damage (like we do for driver or pilot licenses).

Tyndmyr wrote:

Ranbot wrote:Also it's been stated in the discussion above that regulations eventually can influence culture, like how smoking restrictions have helped society smoke less. Or seat belt regulations for cars have slowly become a widespread social habit for most people to buckle up. So, if there's a problem with our culture of violence and guns, then maybe it's time for regulation that will help shape that culture in a more positive and safer way for everyone.

See, here's the thing. People keep blaming violence on exposure to recreational activity. Some blame movies. Some blame video games. Some blame the NRA.

But those things are not causally linked...

I never linked movies, video games, or the NRA, so don't insert that tired strawman trope. FULL STOP.

Spoiler:

As an aside, I make a concerted effort to respect people by only responding to what people actually state without inferring anything, or if I am in inferring something I point it out or ask them if that's what they mean (which I did for you earlier in this discussion). I would appreciate the same respect.

Now, maybe I didn't explain myself well enough and you thought you had the room to infer.... People compartmentalize their normal everyday life very well from their art and recreation, which is why targeting movies, video games, music is worthless or can make the problem worse. Good regulations [and enforcement] will target only the risky act or behavior itself, and over time will instill an awareness and safety in society without restricting the cultural expressions of society. I purposely gave the examples of seatbelt laws and anti-cigarette laws because they raised awareness throughout society of risky behaviors that had been normalized in everyday life, without targeting cultural art and expression (i.e. movies, games, clubs, etc.). Smart regulations and enforcement can help make everyone aware of dangers, aware of the responsibility they are given, slow people down, and not normalize risky behaviors in everyday life. Smart regulations only target the risky behavior itself, and eventually society develops the social and mental ability to deal with the problem on it's own. If you can't think of any regulations like this that may relate to guns, you're not trying hard enough.

Ranbot wrote:Good point, I forgot about that recent mass shooting. (We have so many mass shootings to pay attention to here in the US, that I probably barely noticed one happening in Australia.) BUT, Australia's record over the last few decades is undeniably far better than the US and it's far too early to say Australia is sliding into a trend of mass shootings based on one event. I think my point still stands.

It depends on how you crunch the stats, but "less violent than the US", even if one restricts it to mass shootings, is not very unusual. It's so common that one can associate it with literally anything.

Mass shootings are inherently low-frequency events. If you're looking at "great track record except for this one time", then just about any time period is pretty good for just about any country or grouping. Norway has a really great violence record save for one event. Bump stocks have an absolutely flawless record, save for one event.

If you can apply your criteria to anything and it fits, then it's not a very strong point.

Tyndmyr wrote:

Ranbot wrote:(* and I presume you would correlate mass shootings to culture too, although I know you didn't say anything about mass shootings specifically... if not I take it back.)

Mass killings in general probably have culture-related connections, sure. I am not certain I can list all of them, as crime and murder are complicated subjects, but there's a number of known factors that go with violent crime. Lead consumption was definitely a past issue in the US...

This issue of lead is actually related to my career... lead exposure is associated with increased violent behavior, but overall lead exposure (which is principally from old water pipes, leaded paint dust/chips, and inhalation of leaded gasoline fumes or smog) has gone down drastically since regulations in the 1970's. Lead exposure has gone down while mass shootings have gone up. Also, lead use wasn't unique to the US, you can find lots of lead exposure all over the world without correlations to mass shootings. I won't deny the possibility lead could be a minor contributory factor... but it's far from a smoking gun.

My overall point isn't that lead is responsible for all of it. Merely that it's multifactor, and we know at least enough to understand violence reasonably well as a whole without ever bringing firearms into it. We may, of course, still be missing some data, but generally speaking, mass shootings appear to be a special, low frequency case of violence. We can use similar methodologies to study the patterns.

Tyndmyr wrote:Mass killers are almost invariably socially isolated youngish males with an antisocial, violent history. A great number of the individuals demonstrate many warning signs, but pretty much nothing happens until after the shooting starts. A ton of them have violent crimes, often including domestic violence in their past. A culture of ignoring such individuals has obvious problems.

Yeah often stated and I won't say it's wrong, but I don't find it to be as relevant to gun control as it's often made to be. Quality mental health support in this country is a non-starter, caught in the morass of other health care issues.

I agree that health legislation that makes sense has been difficult, but it's still fundamentally a root cause here. It's incidentally an issue for many other things that changing gun legislation won't impact at all, so ignoring it and advocating for gun control instead is...a really poor bandaid.

The issues of mental health support and guns are related, but not necessarily dependent on each other insofar as regulation. It's like if you own house and a massive limb in jeopardy of breaking hangs over your roof, but the trunk of the tree is on your neighbor's property, so you shrug your shoulders and do nothing. That's what the "fix mental health first" argument sounds like to me. So, I don't think the lack of mental health care precludes us from giving police and courts a better means to track and/or remove weapons from potentially dangerous individuals. Nor do I think it precludes us from a better system of checks and/or training of individuals before giving them responsibility for weapons that can do so much damage (like we do for driver or pilot licenses).

We already have the laws for this, in large part. Nothing comes of them because nobody bothers to do the work. It's already illegal to get a firearm if you have been involuntarily committed, are a drunk, etc, etc. But if nobody ever puts your conviction into the background check system, and nobody ever follows up on illegal attempts to buy guns, then, in practice, they still can.

Outlawing it more will do exactly fuck-all until you fix the system.

Tyndmyr wrote:

Ranbot wrote:Also it's been stated in the discussion above that regulations eventually can influence culture, like how smoking restrictions have helped society smoke less. Or seat belt regulations for cars have slowly become a widespread social habit for most people to buckle up. So, if there's a problem with our culture of violence and guns, then maybe it's time for regulation that will help shape that culture in a more positive and safer way for everyone.

See, here's the thing. People keep blaming violence on exposure to recreational activity. Some blame movies. Some blame video games. Some blame the NRA.

But those things are not causally linked...

I never linked movies, video games, or the NRA, so don't insert that tired strawman trope. FULL STOP.

*sigh*

The latter is not an insinuation that you are particularly claiming that. It's an observation on the current political landscape. The point is that everyone is attempting to use "shape the culture" as the solution, but nobody seems to make a solid case for how their particular cultural shaping attempt is actually a solution.

Yeah, regulations sometimes work, but that doesn't mean all regulations will have the stated objective, right? Would regulations on violent video games change the "culture of violence"? Not really a lot of evidence for that working. Well, how about say, banning bump stocks(pick a different example if you prefer)? What evidence do you have that say, the video game banners do not?

Edit: I note that you refer to "good regulation" as targeting only the risky action itself. How do you square that with aiming at the entire culture? What exact regulations are you referring to, if not the widespread attempts at restricting purchase/possession of firearms and related gear? How are those narrowly targeted at only risky action?

Tyndmyr wrote:Mass killers are almost invariably socially isolated youngish males with an antisocial, violent history. A great number of the individuals demonstrate many warning signs, but pretty much nothing happens until after the shooting starts. A ton of them have violent crimes, often including domestic violence in their past. A culture of ignoring such individuals has obvious problems.

Yeah often stated and I won't say it's wrong, but I don't find it to be as relevant to gun control as it's often made to be. Quality mental health support in this country is a non-starter, caught in the morass of other health care issues. The issues of mental health support and guns are related, but not necessarily dependent on each other insofar as regulation. It's like if you own house and a massive limb in jeopardy of breaking hangs over your roof, but the trunk of the tree is on your neighbor's property, so you shrug your shoulders and do nothing. That's what the "fix mental health first" argument sounds like to me.

Considering that suicide kills more people than firearm homicides, that improved mental healthcare specifically, and healthcare generally, would not just reduce suicides, but would drastically increase the quality of life and life expectancy for almost every person living in this country while contrariwise firearm regulations are at best marginally effective at reducing violence. To me the 'Ban guns first and fix healthcare...never' argument rings hollow.

Considering further that recently, Obama pushed for both gun control and improved healthcare, and only really made progress on healthcare, it seems to me that healthcare improvements are less of a non-starter than gun control. Though admittedly, I never liked the 'can't be done so let's not try' argument in the first place.

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

umm...To run with the argument;Violent Movies and Violent Games do have the effect of desensitising us to one human killing another human.When we decided smoking needed to be reduced throughout the culture, smokers stoped showing up in media.

Sure, sure we still see the odd smoker on the screen.They tend to be the Bad Guy or the Idiot.

We are a Monkey See: Monkey Do species.

If we want people to act with dignity and compassion,We need to place role models in front of The Masses.

In recent studies regarding guns, turns out guns are not only an indicator of your ideological beliefs, but they are also polarized in how you use them.Republican states kill themselves with guns, while Democratic states kill other people with guns. That's not the actual statement, but it points that way.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... edirect=on

This data was possible from a rare gun control victory, Funding for the CDC to study gun control.

A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death. In regions of the country won by Republican, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun. One of the biggest paradoxes — or, at least, potential paradoxes — about gun violence in America is that more gun violence occurs in Republican areas than Democratic areas.

This speaks to a dichotomy in gun control regulation. Cities have different gun problems from rural areas. Nobody is demanding that rural gun owners are required to put guns into a safe with a 1 hour delay before opening.* You guys really need to see the latest data, and the debate needs to focus on maximizing data collection. If you recall, the gun lobby is terrified of gun registration, digitalizing background checks**, and funding for gun control studies. It's easier to fight for a profitable industry when you can cloak the conversation as us vs them factionalism, instead of datasets pointing towards policy changes.

*Suicides are mostly an impulsive thing, extending the suicide attempt past can stop it. **This is very hard, since it requires money from cash strapped states, agencies, etc etc, all feeding into a single system, without error or delay.

This didn't come from a CDC funded 'gun control' study, or any kind of peer-reviewed study for that matter, it's an analysis by the WaPo using data on gun deaths the CDC has always collected.

If you recall, the gun lobby is terrified of gun registration, digitalizing background checks**, and funding for gun control studies. It's easier to fight for a profitable industry when you can cloak the conversation as us vs them factionalism, instead of datasets pointing towards policy changes.

This speaks to a problem I've seen increasingly in politics recently. I'm sure it's existed before now, but it definitely seems to have become more pronounced in the last 2-3 years. Namely, dismissing the views of your ideological opponents by attributing them to a 'lobby' or some other external factor (Russian 'fake news' propaganda is also a favorite). Pro-gun voters in this country who vote against politicians who advocate for gun-control and are against registration and increased gun control in polls and referendums, are no more 'The NRA' or 'The Gun Lobby' than the voters on the opposite side are 'The Bloomberg Group' or 'The Gun Control Lobby'. If anything, the NRA's millions of members vote for the board and have tremendous influence on the positions the organization takes, while I am not aware of any similar method for average voters to have an influence on Everytown which outspends the NRA on political contributions...

Anyway, registration is a bad idea because it's never in history worked. At best, gun registries are expensive boondoggles that leak the addresses of gun owners to criminals, and at worst registration is a precursor to confiscation. I'm not even sure how 'registration' is supposed to address any of the actual problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'digitalizing background checks'.

I have always been in favor of increased study on violence and firearms, so long as it's not conducted with an ex-ante 'gun control' bias. Contrariwise, you're the one who seems intent on using weak data to cloak the conversation in 'us vs them' factionalism.

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

EdgarJPublius wrote:Anyway, registration is a bad idea because it's never in history worked. At best, gun registries are expensive boondoggles that leak the addresses of gun owners to criminals, and at worst registration is a precursor to confiscation. I'm not even sure how 'registration' is supposed to address any of the actual problems.

The overwhelming majority of countries in the developed world have gun registration. It works fine. Once again, the United States is a weird outlier in its inability to consider even the most basic of gun control legislation.

Universal registration has been tried in several countries, most recently in Canada. The program turned out to be far more expensive than expected and didn't have any discernable impact on crime

In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country

'Works fine' for what purpose exactly?

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Universal registration has been tried in several countries, most recently in Canada. The program turned out to be far more expensive than expected and didn't have any discernable impact on crime

In most countries the actual number registered settles out at about a sixth. Germany required registration during the Baader-Meinhof reign of terror in the 1970s, and recorded 3.2 million of the estimated 17 million guns in that country; England tried to register pump-action and semiautomatic shotguns in the 1980s, but only got about 50,000 of the estimated 300,000 such guns stored in homes around the country

Universal registration has been tried in several countries, most recently in Canada. The program turned out to be far more expensive than expected and didn't have any discernable impact on crime

'Works fine' for what purpose exactly?

Just to note that was Canada's long gun registry. Those are non-restricted weapons. Restricted weapons (handguns) all still require registration. Handguns have required registration since 1934 in fact.

ucim wrote:Nonetheless, the police are afraid of people with guns. It gives them pause.

Nor much pause before they shoot to kill.

Only if they think they can get away with it. Unarmed people are shot by cops all the time. So are armed people. But organized armed people are dealt with differently. Sometimes tragically, like Waco, but sometimes with more caution, like the Ted Bundy incident. But irrespective of which side you are on (in any of these conflicts), if there were no guns, there would be no conflict, no resistance. Just obedience. You will be assimilated.

addams wrote:Orange Hitler is the scariest thing I've ever seen in my life.We can't use Guns to change That. We must stop thinking we can.

I'm not proposing that we stop him with guns. But what I am saying is that if we let government disarm us, we make his job so much easier.

Soupspoon wrote:I find it remarkable how some people seem to fear a government that, on balance, is not actually trying that hard to oppress its own people while at the same time (not, so far as I know, in your case) deifying a head of government who seems hell-bent on sinking the ship with his antics whilst securing the best lifeboat.

And we in the UK are far from cowed subjects, despite our blissfully gun-free hands.

The contradiction is illusory, coming from a misinterpretation of my point. I am not advocating that we arm ourselves. I'm saying that we cannot surrender the ability to do so. The key metric isn't gun ownership, but gun prohibitions. Personally I have no interest in owning or using a gun, certainly not in self defense. I prefer to avoid the need for that by employing "personal diplomacy". But I think it would be wrong for us to let government prevent it's citizens from owning them, or to unduly restrict them.

We should be required to know how to use them safely (just like cars and dogs), and we should be required to behave properly when using them. That's the hard part. That requires maturity, thoughtfulness, and a good sense of values. We cannot trust values to government; not national (Trump), not local (Arpaio), not any government that has ultimate authority over us. Remember that is is we who have ultimate authority over the government; we need the tools to ensure that it remain so.

Yes, it's true that our government is on balance not trying to oppress its people. Unless they are gay. Or brown. Or transgender. Or Arab. Or ill. Or rational. And yes, the best way to fight this is at the ballot box. But there needs to be reason for the government to treat the ballot box as authoritative.

Tyndmyr wrote:I agree that preserving the power of the electorate is important, but revolution is sort of a last ditch thing.

Yes, it is. A very last ditch thing. It still needs to be possible, because should it ever come to be necessary, dictators are rather hard to "persuade" unarmed.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

As I just pointed out, overthrowing tyrants is easier and more successful without guns. Violent revolutions don't work, for the most part. Successful revolutions are mostly nonviolent. Guns give tyrants an excuse to use force.

Tyndmyr wrote:I agree that preserving the power of the electorate is important, but revolution is sort of a last ditch thing.

Yes, it is. A very last ditch thing. It still needs to be possible, because should it ever come to be necessary, dictators are rather hard to "persuade" unarmed.

People traditionally do not do well with infrequent events. We don't prepare for once in a hundred year events well, generally speaking, and often, we do substantially worse. Humans are really, really bad at dealing with infrequent risk.

Revolutions are, in any sort of functioning society, fairly infrequent. Big, serious revolutions the US has experienced come down to the Civil War and the Revolution. It's sort of the definition of an infrequent event. While I agree that, in general, every precaution ought to be made to avoid tyranny, I think that, in practice, such considerations are very far from everyday life.

It's really easy for folks to discount any such need as a result, and this ends up lacking some weight.

LaserGuy wrote:As I just pointed out, overthrowing tyrants is easier and more successful without guns. Violent revolutions don't work, for the most part. Successful revolutions are mostly nonviolent. Guns give tyrants an excuse to use force.

I agree with your fact, but I don't agree entirely with where you're going with them. Naturally, revolutions that were not shot to bits were more successful.

Non-violence cannot be guaranteed by a simple lack of guns. Consider, if you will, Palestine. In general, the Palestinians at the border are far, far less armed than the Israeli soldiers there. And yet, bullets still kill them.

The rational conclusion is that you're a lot better off against an adversary that is unwilling to just shoot you all. But disarming yourself doesn't guarantee this. And if they're willing to just shoot you, you probably stand a better chance with guns than without. Sure, sure, you don't bring guns to a peaceful protest so long as peaceful protests work, but if a peaceful protest results in your side ending up dead, then guns are probably advantageous.

Tyndmyr wrote:Non-violence cannot be guaranteed by a simple lack of guns. Consider, if you will, Palestine. In general, the Palestinians at the border are far, far less armed than the Israeli soldiers there. And yet, bullets still kill them.

The rational conclusion is that you're a lot better off against an adversary that is unwilling to just shoot you all. But disarming yourself doesn't guarantee this. And if they're willing to just shoot you, you probably stand a better chance with guns than without. Sure, sure, you don't bring guns to a peaceful protest so long as peaceful protests work, but if a peaceful protest results in your side ending up dead, then guns are probably advantageous.

I think that the Israel/Palestine conflict demonstrates the potential failures of both approaches. The situation is sufficiently complex that I don't really feel that discussing it in the context of gun control is really fruitful.

LaserGuy wrote:I think that the Israel/Palestine conflict demonstrates the potential failures of both approaches. The situation is sufficiently complex that I don't really feel that discussing it in the context of gun control is really fruitful.

Oh, I don't think either approach is going to fix their inherent problems. Whatever fixes it eventually, it'll be an entirely different approach. I'll rephrase it to be more abstract.

There's virtue in avoiding gunfights, but if there's going to be a gunfight and you intend to show up, you probably need a gun. If you're getting a gun solely for the purpose of turning non-fights into gunfights, you're probably doing it wrong, regardless of if you're talking crime, political change or what have you.

I view gun control like seat belts and speed limits. Not everyone follows them, but they do save lives and it is worth the cost for the lives saved. Honestly, in the modern day we do not need rifles. A pistol with 10 rounds is good enough for home defense. Someone's hobby is not worth the price paid in lives. Maybe it won't stop all criminals from getting access to them anyways, but it will stop some of them and every life saved is worth it when the effect is so directly associable.

Also, to pre-empt the: but x, y, and z cause deaths too.

Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).

That's a very dangerous road to go down. Freedom vs security. Security seems to win every time. But without freedom, there's no reason to bother about security.

Remember that most gun deaths are not accidental. They are caused by people deliberately wanting to kill somebody. That is what's wrong with society.

Jose

Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

That's a very dangerous road to go down. Freedom vs security. Security seems to win every time. But without freedom, there's no reason to bother about security.

Remember that most gun deaths are not accidental. They are caused by people deliberately wanting to kill somebody. That is what's wrong with society.

Jose

I thought I sort of approached that with qualifiers and examples, but it looks like I was unsuccessful. Most hobbies don't involve things used specifically to facilitate killing and that are effective even in the hands of very low skill users. I don't know if that's still a slippery slope, but I hope that at least fixes some of my assertion.

Freedom and Security are not opposing ends of a scale, giving up freedom does not necessarily increase security, nor vice versa.

The people enjoying the hobby are overwhelmingly not the ones committing the violence. If you want to stop the violence, come up with some laws that will impact the violent. Don't throw people who haven't comitted any crimes under the bus just to 'do something about it'

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

gd1 wrote:I view gun control like seat belts and speed limits. Not everyone follows them, but they do save lives and it is worth the cost for the lives saved. Honestly, in the modern day we do not need rifles. A pistol with 10 rounds is good enough for home defense. Someone's hobby is not worth the price paid in lives. Maybe it won't stop all criminals from getting access to them anyways, but it will stop some of them and every life saved is worth it when the effect is so directly associable.

On a death for death basis, rifles kill far fewer people than pistols.

And the whole "gun control saves lives" thing is questionable. At a minimum, not all gun control is equal. Some bits, like not letting violent criminals buy them, are uncontroversial, and even the gun culture advocates them. It's the laws that punish legitimate, non criminal owners that are at issue. For instance, I would very much like to not be required to buy two gun locks with every pistol. Even one is dubious, given that they live in a safe, but two is sheer redundancy. I can't even use both locks at the same time. So, I have a small pile of pointless locks. That particular regulation is saving zero lives, but is causing waste.

Other laws are also often bad, but I like using that example because most everyone can easily see just how impractical it is, without any special knowledge of firearms.

Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).

Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Freedom and Security are not opposing ends of a scale, giving up freedom does not necessarily increase security, nor vice versa.

Yup. A better interpretation of Franklin's quote would be to look for ways to solve the security problem without trading away essential freedom. There are often a great number of potential solutions, jumping straight to restricting others has a long history of causing problems. This, of course, applies to a lot more than just guns.

EdgarJPublius wrote:Freedom and Security are not opposing ends of a scale, giving up freedom does not necessarily increase security, nor vice versa.

The people enjoying the hobby are overwhelmingly not the ones committing the violence. If you want to stop the violence, come up with some laws that will impact the violent. Don't throw people who haven't committed any crimes under the bus just to 'do something about it'

Guns, like fire, are a tool. It's unfortunate that we live in a world where some people need guns to defend themselves, but it's a fact. However, you don't need a gun to have hobbies and with food available in stores, most people don't need a gun for hunting to survive. When guns can so directly be attributed to facilitating death, making them harder to access except in the case of self defense would very likely reduce the number of guns at the cost of hobbies and hunting. In exchange, some number of lives would be saved from something with a direct use of facilitating killing people. I'm not saying ban all guns. I'm saying that a hobby and hunting are not worth it in exchange for peoples lives when the cause is so directly linked.

Tyndmyr wrote:

gd1 wrote:I view gun control like seat belts and speed limits. Not everyone follows them, but they do save lives and it is worth the cost for the lives saved. Honestly, in the modern day we do not need rifles. A pistol with 10 rounds is good enough for home defense. Someone's hobby is not worth the price paid in lives. Maybe it won't stop all criminals from getting access to them anyways, but it will stop some of them and every life saved is worth it when the effect is so directly associable.

On a death for death basis, rifles kill far fewer people than pistols.

And the whole "gun control saves lives" thing is questionable. At a minimum, not all gun control is equal. Some bits, like not letting violent criminals buy them, are uncontroversial, and even the gun culture advocates them. It's the laws that punish legitimate, non criminal owners that are at issue. For instance, I would very much like to not be required to buy two gun locks with every pistol. Even one is dubious, given that they live in a safe, but two is sheer redundancy. I can't even use both locks at the same time. So, I have a small pile of pointless locks. That particular regulation is saving zero lives, but is causing waste.

Other laws are also often bad, but I like using that example because most everyone can easily see just how impractical it is, without any special knowledge of firearms.

Rifles are still used in shootings as evidenced by school shootings. Reducing access could reduce death. There is no need for legitimate ownership of a rifle in today's society unless you live out in the woods and shoot your food on a daily basis. You don't need it as a hobby and stores make food available. So, punishing legitimate owners may be the wrong way to look at it. They just aren't necessary, and the tradeoff is directly associable as a cost in human life. I don't know about the locks deal. I would think that to be a waste of time for the purpose of self defense as you'd want to have it ready as quickly as possible.

Tyndmyr wrote:

Usually it's a tool that has extreme importance in modern society (like a car) or it's something that is not directly used to kill masses of people (like a computer game in which case the people made their choice as opposed to not making their choice to be gunned down en masse).

Having a backyard swimming pool is a lot more dangerous to your family than owning a rifle.

I don't think it would be easy for an owner of a pool to kill multiple people with their pool. I mean, I guess there's a way, but I don't think it's that much of a problem.

Tyndmyr wrote:

EdgarJPublius wrote:Freedom and Security are not opposing ends of a scale, giving up freedom does not necessarily increase security, nor vice versa.

Yup. A better interpretation of Franklin's quote would be to look for ways to solve the security problem without trading away essential freedom. There are often a great number of potential solutions, jumping straight to restricting others has a long history of causing problems. This, of course, applies to a lot more than just guns.

It's not an essential freedom (and certainly one that I wouldn't think would be worth the directly traceable cost in human life). Guns should really only be used for self defense in a large number of situations. If it were a hobby like skiing or something where the cause of other people's deaths (who didn't choose it) was so directly associable then maybe it would be harder to associate. But the fact is that guns do facilitate killing. They are necessary for self defense, but not a whole lot of other things.

Tyndmyr wrote:It's the laws that punish legitimate, non criminal owners that are at issue.

Punish. An odd word. Used in its most broad sense, I presume. Like when I wasn't allowed a second chocolate biscuit in any given day as a child.

And if 'non-criminal' owners were sanctioned against their ownership by law, then they would be criminal by definition if they were still owners. (Like children of undocumented imigrants who are allowed to go through the process of legalising their status so long as they have no criminal record, but then get a record and are deporyed for breaking the immigration law. Was that a shoe I hear falling from the other foot?)

Ach! The situation is crazy enough. But for some reason I decided to write and post the above anyway.